Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Arctic Home in the Vedas c12: Chapter IX. Vedic Myths—The Captive Waters

The Arctic Home in the Vedas c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX. Vedic Myths—The Captive Waters

c12.2

Direct evidence for the Arctic theory summed up —Different nature of the mythological evidence —Schools of mythological interpretation —The naturalistic or the Nairukta school —Its theories —The Dawn theory and the myths explained by it —The Storm theory, Indra and Vritra —The Vernal theory, the Ashvins' exploits —Vritra's legend usually explained by the Storm theory —Simultaneous effects of Indra's conquest over Vritra —The release of waters, the release of cows, the recovery of the dawn and the production of the sun —Vedic authorities in support of their simultaneous character —Passages relating to the place and time of the conflict —The simultaneous nature left unexplained by the Dawn or the Storm theory —Battle not fought in the atmosphere above, as implied by the Storm theory —Nor in the rainy season —Misinterpretation of words like parvata, giri, adri, &c. —The Storm theory inadequate in every respect —New explanation necessary —The real nature of waters explained —They are aerial or celestial waters, and not the waters of rain —Vedic bards knew of a region ‘below the three earths’ —The contrary view of Wallis refuted —The real meaning of rajas, Nir-riti, ardhau and samudram explained —Cosmic circulation of aerial waters —Nether world, the home of aerial waters —Avestic passages describing the circulation of waters cited and explained —Sarasvatî and Ardvi Sûra Anâhita are celestial rivers —The source of all plants and rain —The real nature of Vritra's fight —Simultaneous release of waters and light is intelligible, if both have the same source —Both stopped by Vritra's encompassing the waters in the lower world —The closing of the apertures in the mountains (parvatas) on the horizon —The movement of the waters and the sun co-related —Express passages from the Avesta to that effect —The sun stopping for a long time in waters —Avestic passages in support thereof —Its effect on the disposal of corpses —Darkness synchronous with the cessation of the flow of waters in winter —Its long duration —Cosmic circulation of waters in other mythologies —Express texts showing that the fight with Vritra was annual and fought in winter —Inexplicable except on the Arctic theory —The exact date of Indra's fight with Vritra preserved in the Rig-Veda —The real meaning of *chatvârimshyám sharadi* explained —Shambara found on the 40th day of *Sharad* —Denotes the commencement of the long night —Vedic passages shewing *Sharad* to be the last season of sunshine —Paleographical evidence for reckoning time by seasons —Similar reckoning in the Avesta —100 autumnal forts of Vritra and the killing of the watery demon with ice explained —The seven rivers released by Indra —Cannot be terrestrial, nor the rivers of the Panjaub —The interpretation of Western scholars examined and rejected —The connection between the seven rivers and the seven suns pointed out —The origin of the phrase *Hapta-hindu* in the Avesta —Probably a transference of an old mythological name to a place in the new home —Vritra's legend Arctic in origin —Captive waters represent the yearly struggle between light and the darkness in the ancient Arctic home.

c12.3.1

WE have now examined most of the Vedic passages, which directly show that the Polar or the Circum-Polar characteristics, determined in the third chapter, were known, by tradition, to the Vedic bards. We started with the tradition about the night of the gods, or a day and a night of six months each, and found that it could be traced back to the Indo-Iranian, if not to the Indo-Germanic, period. A close examination of the dawn-hymns in the Rig-Veda next disclosed the fact that Uṣas, or the deity presiding over the dawn, is often addressed in the plural number in the Vedic hymns, and that this could be accounted for only on the supposition that the Vedic dawns were a closely connected band of many dawns,—a supposition, which was found to be fully borne out by express passages in the Vedic literature, stating, in unambiguous terms, that the Vedic dawns were 30 in number, and that in ancient times a period of several days elapsed between the first appearance of light on the horizon and the rising of the sun. We have also found that the dawn is expressly described in the Rig- Veda as moving round like a wheel, a characteristic, which is true only in the case of the Polar dawn. These facts sufficiently prove the acquaintance of the Vedic bards with the physical phenomena, witnessible only in the Arctic regions.

c12.3.2

But to make the matter more certain, I have, in the last three chapters, quoted and discussed Vedic passages, which go to prove that the long Arctic nights and the corresponding long days of varying duration, as well as, a year of ten months or five seasons, were equally known to the poets of the Rig-Veda. An examination of the ancient sacrificial system, and especially of the annual Sattras and night-sacrifices, further showed that in old times yearly sacrificial sessions did not last for twelve months as at present, but were completed in nine or ten months; and the hundred night-sacrifices were, at that time, really performed, as their name indicates, during the darkness of the long night. The legends of Dîrghatamas and Aditi's sons, and the tradition about the sacrificial sessions of the Navagvas and the Dashagvas also pointed to the same conclusion. Our case does not, therefore, depend on an isolated fact here and an isolated fact there. We have seen that the half-year-long day and night, the long dawn with its revolving splendours, the long continuous night matched by the corresponding long day and associated with a succession of ordinary days and nights of varying lengths, and the total annual period of sunshine of less than twelve months are the principal peculiar characteristics of the Polar or the Circum-Polar calendar;

c12.3.3

and when express passages are found in the Vedas, the oldest record of early Aryan thoughts and sentiments, showing that each and every one of these characteristics was known to the Vedic bards, who themselves lived in a region where the year was made up of three hundred and sixty or three hundred and sixty five days, one is irresistibly led to the conclusion that the poets of the Rig-Veda must have known these facts by tradition and that their ancestors must have lived in regions where such phenomena were possible. It is not to be expected that the evidence on each and every one of these points will be equally conclusive, especially as we are dealing with facts which existed thousands of years ago. But if we bear in mind that the facts are astronomically connected in such a way that if one of them is firmly established all the others follow from it as a matter of course, the cumulative effect of the evidence discussed in the previous chapters cannot fail to be convincing. It is true that many of the passages, quoted in support of the Arctic theory, are interpreted, in the way I have done, for the first time; but I have already pointed out that this is due to the fact that the real key to the interpretation of these passages was discovered only during the last 30 or 40 years.

c12.3.4

Yâska and Sâyaṇa knew nothing definite about the circum-polar or the Arctic regions, and when a Vedic passage was found not to yield a sense intelligible to them, they either contented themselves with barely explaining the verbal texture of the passage, or distorted it to suit their own ideas. Western scholars have corrected some of these mistakes, but as the possibility of an Arctic home in pre-glacial times was not admitted 30 or 40 years back, the most explicit references, whether in the Avesta or the Ṛig-Veda, to a primeval home in the extreme north, have been either altogether ignored, or somehow or other explained away, even by Western scholars. Many of the passages cited by me fall under this class; but I trust that if my interpretations are examined without any bias and in the light of the latest scientific researches, they will be found to be far more natural and simple than those in vogue at present. In some cases no new interpretations were, however, necessary. The passages have been correctly interpreted; but in the absence of the true key to their meaning, their real import was either altogether missed, or but imperfectly understood. In such cases I have had to exhibit the passages in their true light or colours, giving in each case, my reasons for doing the same. This has sometimes rendered it necessary to introduce certain topics not directly relevant to the question in hand;

c12.3.5

but on the whole, I think, it will be found that I have, as far as possible, tried to confine myself to the discussion of the direct evidence bearing on the points in issue, and have examined it according to the strict method of historic or scientific investigation. I did not start with any preconceived notion in favour of the Arctic theory, nay, I regarded it as highly improbable at first; but the accumulating evidence in its support eventually forced me to accept it, and, in all probability, the evidence cited in the previous chapters, will, I think, produce the same impression on the reader's mind.

c12.4

But the evidence, which I am now going to cite in support of the Arctic theory, is of a different character. If the ancestors of the Vedic bards ever lived near the North Pole, the cosmical or the meteorological conditions of the place could not have failed to influence the mythology of these people; and if our theory is true, a careful examination of the Vedic myths ought to disclose facts, which cannot be accounted for by any other theory. The probative value of such evidence will manifestly be inferior to that of the direct evidence previously cited, for myths and legends are variously explained by different scholars. Thus Yâska mentions three or four different schools of interpretation, each of which tries to explain the nature and character of the Vedic deities in a different way. One of these schools would have us believe that many of the deities were real historical personages, who were subsequently apotheosized for their supernatural virtues or exploits. Other theologians divide the deities into Karma-devatâs or those that have been raised to the divine rank by their own deeds, and Âjânadevatâs or those that were divine by birth; while the Nairuktas (or the etymologists) maintain that the Vedic deities represent certain cosmical and physical phenomena such as the appearance of the dawn or the breaking up of the storm-clouds by the lightning. The Adhyâtmikas, on the other hand, try to explain certain Vedic passages in their own philosophical way; and there are others, who endeavour to explain Vedic myths in other different ways. But this is not the place where the relative merits of these different schools can be discussed or examined. I only wish to point out that those, who explain the Vedic myths on the supposition that they represent, directly or allegorically, ethical, historical or philosophical facts, are not likely to accept any inference based upon the theory which interprets the Vedic myths as referring to certain cosmical and physical phenomena. It was for this reason that I reserved the discussion of the mythological evidence for consideration in a separate chapter, after all the evidence directly bearing on the subject has been examined. The evidence, which proves the existence of a long continuous dawn, or a long continuous day or night, is not affected by the different theories regarding the interpretation of the Vedic myths, and may, therefore, be termed, what the lawyers call, *direct*; but in the case of the mythological evidence only those, who accept the Nairukta method of interpretation, will admit the validity of any inference based upon the consideration of these myths. It is true that the Nairukta school of interpretation dates from ancient times, and that modern scholars have accepted the method almost without reserve, though they might differ from the ancient Nairuktas, like Yâska, in the details of the explanation suggested by them. But still when a new theory is to be established, I thought it safer to separate the mythological from the direct evidence bearing on the points at issue, even when the two lines of investigation seemed to converge towards the same point.

c12.5

Now it has been recorded by Yâska that the Nairuktas explain most of the Vedic legends on the theory that they represent either the daily triumph of light over darkness, or the conquest of the storm-god over the dark clouds that imprison the fertilising waters and the light of the sun. Thus when the Ashvins are said to have rescued a quail (Vartikâ) from the jaws of a wolf, Yâska interprets the legend to mean the release and bringing out of the dawn or light from the darkness of the night (Nir. V, 21). His explanation of the character of Vritra is another instance in point. Speaking of the nature of the demon, he thus refers (Nir. II, 16) to the opinions of the different schools, "Who was Vritra? 'A cloud,' say the Nairuktas; 'an Asura, son of Tvashtri,' say the Aitihâsikas. The fall of rain arises from the mingling of the waters and of light. This is figuratively depicted as a conflict. The hymns and the Brâhmanas describe Vritra as a serpent. By the expansion of his body, he blocked up the streams. When he was destroyed the waters flowed forth."¹ The Storm and the Dawn theories thus formed the basis of the Nairukta school of interpretation, and though Western scholars have improved upon it, yet the credit of suggesting this method of interpretation will always rest with the ancient Nairuktas, who, as observed by Prof. Max Muller, had carefully thought out the true character of the Vedic gods several centuries before the Christian era. Thus the legend of Prajâpati loving his own daughter is explained in the Aitareya Brâhmana as referring to the sun running after the dawn or the heaven above (Ait. Br. III, 33); while Kumârila extends this theory to the case of Indra and Ahalyâ, which according to him represent the sun and the night. But though the Nairuktas fully accepted the theory, which explained the Vedic myths as representing cosmical and physical phenomena, yet as their knowledge of the physical world was very limited in those days, they were not able to explain every Vedic myth or legend by this method. For example, out of the various legends about the Ashvins Yâska could explain only one by the Dawn theory, namely, that of the quail being rescued from the jaws of the wolf. This defect has now been partially removed by Western scholars, who, living in the more northern regions, are familiar with the decay in the power of the sun during the cold season, or the eventual triumph of spring over winter, or the restoration of the decayed powers of the sun in summer. This phenomenon has, therefore, been used by them to explain the origin of certain Vedic myths, which have been left unexplained either by the Dawn or the Storm theory. Upto now, we have, thus, three theories for explaining the Vedic myths according to the Nairukta school of interpretation; and it is necessary to describe them briefly before we proceed to show how they fail to account for all the incidents in the myths and legends to which they are applied.

c12.6

¹ See Nir. II, 16:—तत्को वृत्रः । मेघ इति नैरुक्ताः । त्वाष्ट्रोऽसुर इत्यैतिहासिकाः । अपां च ज्योतिषश्च मिश्रीभावकर्मणो वर्षकर्म जायते । तत्रोपमाथ्रेन युद्धवर्णा भवति । अहिवत्तु खलु मंत्रवर्णाः ब्राह्मणवादाश्च । विवृद्ध्या शरीरस्य स्रोतांसि निवारयांचकार । तस्मिन्हते प्रसस्यन्दिर आपः । Cf. Muir's O. S. T. Vol. II, p. 175.

c12.7

According to the Dawn theory, "the whole theogony and philosophy of the ancient world is centered in the Dawn, the mother of the bright gods, of the sun in his various aspects, of the morn, the day, the spring; herself the brilliant image and visage of immortality." Prof. Max Muller, in his *Lectures on the Science of Language*, further remarks¹ that "the dawn, which to us is a merely beautiful sight, was to the early gazers and thinkers the problem of all the problems. It was the unknown land from whence rose every day those bright emblems of divine powers, which left in the mind of man the first impression and intimation of another world, of power above, of order and wisdom. What we simply call the sun-rise, brought before their eyes every day the riddle of all riddles, the riddle of existence. The days of their life sprang from that dark abyss, which every morning seemed instinct with light and life.” And again “a new life flashed up every morning before their eyes, and the fresh breezes of the dawn reached them like greetings wafted across the golden threshold of the sky from the distant lands beyond the mountains, beyond the clouds, beyond the dawn, beyond ‘the immortal sea which brought us hither.’ The dawn seemed to them to open golden gates for the sun to pass in triumph, and while those gates were open their eyes and their minds strove in their childish way to pierce beyond the finite world. That silent aspect awakened in the human mind the conception of the Infinite, the Immortal, the Divine, and the names of dawn became naturally the names of higher powers.” This is manifestly more poetic than real. But the learned Professor explains many Vedic myths on the theory that they are all Dawn-stories in different garbs. Thus, if Saranyu, who had twins from Vivasvat, ran off from him in the form of a mare, and he followed her in the form of a horse, it is nothing but a story of the Dawn disappearing at the approach of the Sun and producing the pair of day and night. The legend of Suryâ’s marriage with Soma, and of Vṛiṣhâkapâyî, whose oxen (the morning vapours) were swallowed by Indra, or of Aditi giving birth to the Âdityas are again said to be the stories of the Dawn under different aspects. Saramâ, crossing the waters to find out the cows stolen by Paṇis, is similarly the Dawn bringing with her the rays of the morning, and when Urvashî says that she is gone away and Purûravas calls himself Vasiṣhṭha or the brightest, it is the same Dawn flying away from the embrace of the rising Sun. In short, the Dawn is supposed to have been everything to the ancient people, and a number of legends are explained in this way, until at last the monotonous character of these stories led the learned professor to ask to himself the question, “Is everything the Dawn? Is everything the Sun?”—a question, which he answers by informing us that so far as his researches were concerned they had led him again and again to the Dawn and the Sun as the chief burden of the myths of the Aryan race. The dawn here referred to is the daily dawn as we see it in the tropical or the temperate zone, or, in other words, it is the daily conquest of light over darkness that is here represented as filling the minds of the ancient bards with such awe and fear as to give rise to a variety of myths. It may be easily perceived how this theory will be affected by the discovery that Uṣas, or the goddess of the dawn in the Rig-Veda does not represent the evanescent dawn of the tropics, but is really the long continuous dawn of the Polar or the Circum-Polar regions. If the Arctic theory is once established, many of these mythological explanations will have to be entirely re-written. But the task cannot be undertaken in a work which is devoted solely to the examination of the evidence in support of that theory.

c12.8

¹ See Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. II, p. 545, ff.

c12.9

The Storm theory was originally put forward by the Indian Nairuktas as a supplement to the Dawn theory, in order to account for myths to which the latter was obviously inapplicable. The chief legend explained on this theory is that of Indra and Vṛitra, and the explanation has been accepted almost without reserve by all Western scholars. The word Indra is said to be derived from the same root which yielded indu, that is, the rain drop; and Vṛitra is one, who covers or encompasses (vṛi, to cover) the waters of the rain-cloud. The two names being thus explained, everything else was made to harmonise with the Storm theory by distorting the phrases, if the same could not be naturally interpreted in conformity therewith. Thus when Indra strikes parvata (i. e., a mountain) and delivers the rivers therefrom, the Nairuktas understood parvata to be a storm-cloud and the rivers to be the streams of rain. Indra's wielding the thunderbolt has been similarly interpreted to mean that he was the god of the thunderstorm, and thunderstorm implied rain as a matter of course. If the Maruts helped Indra in the battle, it was easily explained by the Storm theory, because a thunderstorm or rain was always accompanied by stormy weather. But a more difficult point in the legend, which required explanation, was the hemming in or the captivating of the waters by Vritra or Ahi. In the case of waters in the clouds it was easy to imagine that they were kept captive in the cloud by the demon of drought. But the Rig-Veda often speaks of sindhus or streams being released by the slaughter of Vritra; and if the streams or rivers really represented, as conceived by the advocates of this theory, the rivers of the Panjaub, it was rather difficult to understand how they could be described as being hemmed in or kept captive by Vritra. But the ingenuity of Vedic scholars was quite equal to the occasion, and it was suggested that, as the rivers in India often entirely dried up in summer, the god of the rainy season, who called them back to life, could be rightly described as releasing them from the grasp of Vritra. The Indian Nairuktas do not appear to have extended the theory any further. But in the hands of German mythologians the Storm theory became almost a rival to the Dawn theory; and stories, like that of Saranyu, have been explained by them as referring to the movements of dark storm-clouds hovering in the sky. “Clouds, storms, rains, lightning and thunder,” observes Prof. Kuhn, “were the spectacles that above all others impressed the imagination of the early Aryans and busied it most in finding terrestrial objects to compare with their ever-varying aspects. The beholders were at home on the earth, and the things on the earth were comparitively familiar to them; even the coming and going of the celestial luminaries might often be regarded by them with more composure, because of their regularity; but they could never surcease to feel the liveliest interest in those wonderful meteoric changes, so lawless and mysterious in their visitations, which wrought such immediate and palpable effects for good or ill upon the lives and fortunes of the beholders.”¹ For this reason Prof. Kuhn thinks that these meteorological phenomena are the principal ground-work of all Indo-European mythologies and superstitions; and in accordance with this creed Prof. Roth explains Saranyu as the dark storm-cloud soaring in the space in the beginning of all things and takes Vivasvat as representing the light of heavens.

c12.10

¹ See Max Muller's Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. II, p. 566.

c12.11

The third theory, like the first, is solar in origin, and attempts to explain certain Vedic myths on the supposition that they represent the triumph of spring over snow and winter. Yâska and other Indian Nairuktas lived in regions where the contrast between spring and winter was not so marked as in the countries still further north; and it was probably for this reason that the Vernal theory was not put forward by them to explain the Vedic myths. Prof. Max Muller has tried to explain most of the exploits of the Ashvins by this theory.² If the Ashvins restored Chyavâna to youth, if they protected Atri from the heat and darkness, if they rescued Vandana from a pit where he was buried alive, or if they replaced the leg of Vishpalâ, which she had lost in battle, or restored to Rijrâshva his eye sight, it was simply the Sun-god restored to his former glory after the decay of his powers in winter. In short the birth of the vernal Sun, his fight against the army of winter, and his final victory at the beginning of the spring is, on this theory, the true key to the explanation of many myths where the Sun-god is represented as dying, decaying or undergoing some other affliction. As contrasted with the Dawn theory the physical phenomena, here referred to, are annual. But both are solar theories, and as such may be contrasted with the Storm theory which is meteorological in origin.

c12.12

² See Contributions to the Science of Mythology, Vol. II, pp. 579-605.

c12.13

Besides these three theories, the Dawn, the Storm and the Vernal, Mr. Nârâyaṇa Aiyangâr of Bangalore has recently attempted to explain a number of Vedic myths on the hypothesis that they refer to Orion and Aldebaran. This may be called the Astral theory as distinguished from others. But all these theories cannot be discussed in this place; nor is it necessary to do so, so far as our purpose is concerned. I wish only to show that in spite of the various theories started to explain the Vedic myths, a number of incidents in several important legends have yet remained unexplained; and mythologists have either ignored them altogether, or pushed them out of the way as insignificant or immaterial. If everything could be explained by the Dawn or the Storm theory, we may indeed hesitate to accept a new theory for which there would then be very little scope; but when a number of facts, which have yet remained unexplained, are satisfactorily and appropriately accounted for only by the Arctic theory, we shall be perfectly justified in citing these legends as corroborative evidence in support of our new theory. It is from this point of view that I mean to examine some of the important Vedic myths in this and the following chapter, and shall now begin with the legend of Indra and Vṛitra, or of captive waters, which is generally believed to have been satisfactorily explained by the Storm theory.

c12.14

The struggle between Indra and Vṛitra is represented in the Vedas as being four-fold in character. *First*, it is a struggle between Indra and Vṛitra, the latter of whom appears also under the names of Namuchi, Shushṇa, Shambara, Vala, Pipru, Kuyava and others. This is *Vṛitra-tûrya*, or the fight or struggle with Vṛitra. *Secondly*, it is a fight for the waters, which, either in the form of *sindhus* (rivers) or as *âpaḥ* (simple floods), are often described as released or liberated by the slaughter of Vṛitra. This is *ap-tûrya* or the struggle for waters; and Indra is called *apsu-jit* or conquering in the waters, while Vritra is described as encompassing them (*âpaḥ pari-shayânam*). Thirdly, it is a struggle to regain the cows (*go-iṣṭi*); and there are several passages in the Rig-Veda where the cows are said to have been released by Indra after having overthrown Vritra. Fourthly, it is a fight to regain the day-light or heaven called (*div-iṣṭi*), or the striving for day; and in many places the sun and the dawn are said to be brought out by Indra after killing Vritra.¹ The following extracts from Macdonell's *Vedic Mythology* give the requisite authorities from the Rig-Veda for this four-fold character of the struggle between Indra and Vritra. Speaking of the terrible conflict, he thus sums up the principal incidents thereof as mentioned in the Rig-Veda :—

c12.15

¹ The exploits of Indra are very pithily summed up in the *Nivids* or short *sûtras* or sentences used in offering oblations to the gods. These will be found collected in a separate chapter amongst the *Pari-shiṣṭas* or supplements to the Rig-Veda *Saṃhitâ* text published in Bombay (Tatva-vivechaka Press). According to Dr. Haug these *Nivids* are the originals of the Vedic Suktas or hymns. The *Nivids*, relating to Indra's exploits contain the following :—इंद्रो मरुत्वान् सोमस्य पिबतु ।...। अनृत्रासृजदपः । मरुतामोजसा सह ।...। अप्तुर्यै वृत्रतूर्ये । शंबरहत्ये गविष्टौ ।...। परमस्यां परावति ।...। वज्रस्य भर्ता । पुरां भेत्ता ।...। अपां स्रष्टा । अपां नेता । As regards the meaning of *Div-iṣṭi* see Oldenberg's Vedic Hymns (I, 45, 7), S. B. E. Series, Vol. XLVI. p. 44.

c12.16

"Heaven and earth tremble with fear when Indra strikes Vritra with his bolt (I, 80, 11; II, 11, 9-10; VI, 17, 9); even Tvaṣṭṛi, who forged the bolt, trembles at Indra's anger (I, 80, 14). Indra shatters Vritra with his bolt (I, 32, 5); and strikes his face with his pointed weapon (I, 52, 15). He smote Vritra, who encompassed the waters (VI, 20, 2), or the dragon that lay around (*pari-shayânam*) the waters (IV, 19, 2); he overcame the dragon lying on the waters (V, 30, 6). He slew the dragon hidden in the water and obstructing the waters and the sky (II, 11, 5), and smote Vritra, who enclosed the waters, like a tree, with the bolt (II, 14, 2). Thus 'con-

c12.17

quering in the waters (apsu-jit)’ is his exclusive attribute (VIII, 36, 1).”¹

c12.18

¹ See Macdonell’s Vedic Mythology, in Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, § 22 (Indra), pp. 58-61.

c12.19

As regards the abode of Vritra, we have (§ 68, A):—

c12.20

“Vritra has a hidden (ninya) abode, whence the waters, when released by Indra, escape, overflowing the demon (I, 32, 10). Vritra lies on the waters (I, 121, 11 ; II 11, 19), or enveloped by the waters, at the bottom (budhna) of the rajas or aerial space (I, 52, 6). He is also described as lying on a summit (sânu), when Indra made the waters to flow (I, 80, 5). Vritra has fortresses, which Indra shatters when he slays him (X, 89, 7), and which are ninety-nine in number (VIII, 93, 2; VII, 19, 5). He is called nadî-vrit, or encompasser of rivers (I, 52, 2), and in one passage parvata or cloud is described as being within his belly (I, 57, 6).”

c12.21

There are again passages (V, 32, 5 & 6) where Indra is said to have placed Shushṇa, who was anxious to fight, “in the darkness of the pit,” and slaughtered him “in the darkness, which was unrelieved by the rays of the sun,” (asûrye tamasi). In I, 34, 10, darkness is said to have prevailed in Vritra’s hollow side, and in II, 23, 18, Bṛihaspati, with Indra, is said to have hurled down the ocean, which was “encompassed in darkness,” and opened the stall of kine. Finally in I, 32, 10, Vritra’s body is said to have sunk in “long darkness,” being encompassed with waters. This shows that the waters of the ocean, which was encompassed by Vritra, were not lighted by the rays of the sun. In other words, the ocean (arṇaḥ) which Vritra is said to have encompassed was different from the ‘bright ocean’ (shukram arṇaḥ), which the sun is said to have ascended in V, 45, 10. Vritra’s ocean (arṇava) was enveloped in darkness (tamasâ parivṛitam, II, 23, 18 ), while the ocean, which the sun ascended, was bright and shining (shukram). Indra is again described as going to a very distant (*parâvat*) region to kill Vṛitra or Namuchi, (I, 53, 7; VIII, 12, 17; VIII, 45, 25). If we combine all these statements regarding the scene of the struggle between Indra and Vṛitra, we are led to the conclusion that the fight took place in a dark, distant and watery region. In VIII, 32, 26, Indra is said to have killed Arbuda with ice (*hima*); and in X, 62, 2, the Aṅgirases, who were the assistants of Indra in his conquest of the cows, are said to have struck Vala at the end of the year (*parivatsare*). There is another statement in the Rig-Veda, which gives us the date of Indra's fight with Shambara, but we shall discuss it later on. It is stated above that the number of Vṛitra's forts destroyed by Indra is given as ninety-nine; but in other passages it is said to be ninety or one hundred (I, 130, 7; IV, 30, 20). These fortresses or cities (*puraḥ*) are described as made of stone or iron (IV, 30, 20; IV, 27, 1), and in some places they are said to be autumnal (*shāradiḥ*, I, 130, 7; 131, 4; VI, 20, 10). The importance of these facts, in the interpretation of the legend, will be discussed later on.

c12.22

We have seen that the release of cows and the bringing up of the dawn and the sun are the simultaneous effects of Indra's conquest of Vṛitra. The following extracts from Macdonell's *Vedic Mythology* (p. 61) give the necessary authorities on the point:—

c12.23

"With the liberation of waters is connected the winning of light, sun and dawn. Indra won light and the divine waters (III, 34, 8). The god is invoked to slay Vṛitra and win the light (VIII, 89, 4). When Indra had slain the dragon Vṛitra with his metallic bolt releasing the waters for man, he placed the sun visibly in the heavens (I, 51, 4; 52, 8). Indra, the dragon-slayer, set in motion the flood of waters of the sea, generated the sun, and found the cows (II, 19, 3). He gained the sun and the waters after slaying the demon (III, 34, 8-9). When Indra slew the chief of the dragons and

c12.24

released the waters from the mountain, he generated the sun, the sky and the dawn (I, 32, 4; VI, 30, 5). The cows are also mentioned along with the sun and the dawn (I, 62, 5; II, 12, 7; VI, 17, 5), or with the sun alone (I, 7, 3; II, 19, 3; X, 138, 2), as being found, delivered or won by Indra.”

c12.25

Indra is described in other passages as having released the streams pent up by the dragon (II, 11, 2), and he is said to have won the cows and made the seven rivers flow (I, 32, 12; II, 12, 12). In II, 15, 6, the streams released by him have been described as flowing upwards (udañcham). It may be further noticed that in all these passages the clouds are not referred to under their ordinary name abhra; but the words used are parvata, giri, adri, (which primarily mean a mountain), or údhas (udder), utsa (spring), kabandha (cask) or kosha (pail). All these words have been interpreted by the Nairuktas as meaning a cloud, and this interpretation has been accepted by Western scholars. The word go, which generally means a cow, is also interpreted in some cases to mean the waters released by Indra. Thus when Indra is said to have released the cows, which were fast within the stone (VI, 43, 3), or when he is said to have moved the rock, which encompassed the cows, from its place (VI, 17, 5), it is understood that the reference is to a cloud-rock, which imprisons the rain-waters. Maruts are the usual companions of Indra in this fight; but Viṣṇu, Agni and Bṛihaspati are also spoken of as assisting him in the rescue of the cows from the grip of Vala. Bṛihaspati’s conquest of Vala, who had taken shelter in a rock, is thus taken to be a paraphrase of Indra’s conquest over Vṛitra. In X, 62, 2 and 3, the Aṅgirases are also described as driving out the cows, piercing Vala and causing the sun to mount the sky,—exploits, which are usually attributed to Indra. There are other versions of the same story to be found in the Rig-Veda, but for the purpose in hand, we need not go beyond what has been stated above.

c12.26

Now whosoever reads this description of Indra's fight with Vritra cannot fail to be struck with the fact that there are four simultaneous effects said to have been produced by the conquest of Indra over Vritra, namely, (1) the release of the cows, (2) the release of the waters, (3) the production of the dawn and (4) the production of the sun. Let us now see if the Storm theory satisfactorily explains the simultaneous production of these results from the destruction of Vritra. Vritra is a cloud, a storm-cloud, or a rain-cloud, hovering in the sky, and by smiting it with his thunder-bolt Indra may well be described as releasing the waters imprisoned therein. But where are the cows, which are said to be released along with the waters? The Nairuktas interpret cows to mean waters; but, in that case, the release of the waters and the release of the cows cannot be regarded as two distinct effects. The recovery of the dawn and the sun, along with the release of waters, is, however, still more difficult to explain by the Storm theory, or, we might even say, that it cannot be explained at all. Rain-clouds may temporarily obscure the sun, but the phenomenon is not one which occurs regularly, and it is not possible to speak of the production of the light of the sun as resultiug from the breaking up of the clouds, which may only occasionally obscure the sun. The recovery of the dawn, as a prize of the conflict between Indra and Vritra, simultaneously with the release of waters, is, similarly, quite inexplicable by the Storm theory. The rain-clouds usually move in the heavens, and though we may occasionally find them on the horizon, it is absurd to say that by striking the clouds Indra brought out the dawn. I know of no attempt made by any scholar to explain the four simultaneous effects of Indra's fight with Vritra by any other theory. The Storm theory appears to have been suggested by the Nairuktas, because the release of waters was supposed to be the principal effect of the conquest, and waters were naturally understood to mean the waters, which we see every day. But in spite of the efforts of the Nairuktas and Western scholars, the simultaneous winning of light and waters still remains unexplained. Macdonell (*Ved. Myth.* p. 61) referring to this difficulty observes, “There appears to be a confusion between the notion of the restoration of the sun after the darkness of the thunderstorm, and the recovery of the sun from the darkness of the night at dawn. The latter trait in the Indra myth is most probably only an extension of the former.” If this means anything, it is only a confession of the inability of Vedic scholars to explain the four simultaneous effects of Indra’s conquest over Vṛitra by the Storm theory; and, strange to say, they seem to attribute their failure, not to their own ignorance or inability, but to the alleged confusion of ideas on the part of the Vedic bards.

c12.27

These are not, however, the only points, in which the Storm theory fails to explain the legend of Indra and Vṛitra. It has been pointed out above that Vṛitra was killed in distant regions, in which ghastly darkness reigned, and which abounded in waters; while in X, 73, 7, Indra by killing Namuchi, alias Vṛitra, is said to have cleared the gates of the Devayâna path, evidently meaning that Vṛitra was killed at the gates of the path leading to the region of the gods. Even in the Avesta, the fight between Apaosha and Tishtrya is said to have taken place in the sea of Vouru-Kasha, and Tishtrya is described as moving along the path made by Mazda after his fight with Apaosha. Vṛitra’s abode is similarly described as ‘hidden’ and ‘enveloped by waters’ at the bottom of *rajas* (I, 52, 6). None of these conditions is satisfied by making the storm-cloud, the scene of the battle between Indra and Vṛitra; for a cloud cannot be said to be the ocean of waters, nor can it be described as lying in a distant (*parâvat*) region, or at the threshold of the Devayâna or the path of the gods. In the Rig-Veda *parâvat* is usually contrasted with *arvâvat*, and it means a distant region on the other side, as contrasted with the region on this or the nearer side. The Devayâna is similarly constrasted with the Pitṛiyâna, and means the northern celestial hemisphere. The clouds over the head of the observer cannot be said to be either in the distant region, or at the gate of the Devayâna; nor can we speak of them as enveloped by sun-less darkness. It is, therefore, highly improbable that the rain-clouds could have been the scene of battle between Indra and Vṛitra. It was the sea on the other side, the dark ocean as contrasted with the bright ocean (*shukram arṇaḥ*) which the sun mounts in the morning, where the battle was fought according to the passages referred to above; and the description is appropriate only in the case of the nether world, the celestial hemisphere that lies underneath, and not in the case of clouds moving in the sky above. I do not mean to say that Indra may not have been the god of rain or thunderstorm, but as Vṛitrahan, or the killer of Vṛitra, it is impossible to identify him with the god of rain, if the description of the fight found in the Vedic passages is not to be ignored or set aside.

c12.28

The third objection to the current interpretation of the Vṛitra myth, is that it does not satisfactorily explain the passages, which give the time of Indra’s fight with the demon. On the Storm theory, the fight must be placed in the rainy season or *Varṣhâ*; but the forts of Vṛitra, which Indra is said to have destroyed and thus acquired the epithet *purabhid* or *purandara*, are described in the Ṛig-Veda as autumnal or *shâradîḥ*, i. e., belonging or pertaining to *Sharad*, the season which follows *Varṣhâ*. The discrepancy may be accounted for, by supposing that *Varṣhâ* and *Sharad* were once included under one season which was named not *Varṣhâ* but *Sharad*. But the explanation is opposed to another passage in the Ṛig-Veda (X, 62, 2), which says that Vala was killed at the end of the year (*parivatsare*), unless we again suppose that the year commenced with *Sharad* in those days. Nor can we explain how Arbuda is said to be killed with hima (ice) by Indra. Again, as previously stated, the dawn could not be considered as a prize of the conflict, nor could the fight be said to have been fought in darkness, if we choose the rainy season as the time for the battle of Indra with Vṛitra. It will thus be seen that the Storm theory does not satisfactorily explain the statements regarding the time of the struggle between Indra and Vṛitra.

c12.29

The fourth objection against the Storm theory, as applied to the story of Vṛitra, is that many words like parvata, giri, or adri, which do not signify a cloud, either primarily or secondarily, have to be interpreted as referring figuratively to the rain-cloud. This sounds harsh in many a passage where Indra or Bṛihaspati is described as piercing a mountain or breaking open a stone-cave and liberating the waters or the cows confined therein. In the absence of any other theory, we had to interpret these passages by the Storm theory, as the Nairuktas have done, by assigning to any and every word, used to denote the prison-house of waters or the cows, the meaning of a rain-cloud moving in the sky. But though we could thus temporarily get over the difficulty, the fact, that we had to strain the words used, or to assign unnatural meanings to them, was always a drawback, which detracted from the value of our interpretation. It was probably for this reason that Prof. Oldenberg was led to suggest that Indra’s piercing the mountain and liberating the waters therefrom should be understood to refer not to the rain-cloud, but to the actual striking of the mountains with the thunder-bolt and making the rivers flow forth from them. But, as observed by Max Muller, “the rivers do not gush out of rocks even when they have been struck by lightning”; and so Prof. Oldenberg’s explanation, though it gets us out of one difficulty, lands us on another, which, to say the least, is equally puzzling. If we, therefore, cannot suggest a better explanation, we might as well accept the device of the Nairuktas and interpret parvata, or whatever other word or words may be found used to denote the place of the confinement of waters, as meaning a cloud, and explain the legend of Vritra by the Storm theory as best as we can.

c12.30

It will be found from the foregoing discussion regarding the Storm theory as applied to the legend of Indra and Vritra, that it explains neither the simultaneous effects of Indra’s conquest over Vritra, nor the statements regarding the seat of the battle between them, nor those regarding the time when it took place, nor again does it allow us to take the words, used in certain Vedic passages, in their natural sense; and yet we find that the theory has been accepted as the basis of the legend from the times of the Nairuktas upto the present. Why should it be so?—is a question, which would naturally occur to any one, who examines the subject. It is true that the Storm theory fully explains the release of waters as a result of the fight; but the release of waters is not the only consequence, which we have to account for. There are four simultaneous effects of the war, the release of the waters, the release of the cows, the recovery of the dawn and the production of the sun. The Storm theory explains the first two and the Dawn theory the last two of these; but the whole set of four is explained by neither, nor could the theories be so combined as to explain all the four effects, unless, like Prof. Macdonell, we suppose that the Vedic bards have confused the two entirely different ideas, viz., the restoration of the sunlight after thunderstorm, and the recovery of light from the darkness of night. Of the two theories, the Storm and the Dawn, the ancient Nairuktas, therefore, seem to have adopted that which adequately accounted for the release of the waters and which suited better with their notion of Indra as a thunder-god, on the principle that half a loaf is better than none, and have ignored the remaining incidents in the legend as inexplicable, unimportant, or immaterial. The same theory has also been adopted by Western scholars, and it is the only theory in the field at present. But it is so manifestly inadequate that if a better theory could be found which will explain most of, if not all, the incidents in the legend, no one would hesitate to abandon the Storm theory in favour of the latter.

c12.31

It is, in my opinion, a mistake to suppose that the struggle between Indra and Vritra originally represented the conflict between the thunder-god and the rain-cloud. It is really a struggle between the powers of light and darkness, and we find traces of it in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (IV, 5), where Indra alone of all gods is described as having undertaken the task of driving out Asuras from the darkness of the night. That Indra is the god of light is also evident from many other passages in the Rig-Veda, where, without any reference to the Vritra fight, Indra is said to have found the light (III, 34, 4; VIII, 15, 5; X, 43, 4) in the darkness (I, 108, 8; IV, 16, 4), or to have produced the dawn as well as the sun (II, 12, 7; 21, 4; III, 31, 15), or opened the darkness with the dawn and the sun (I, 62, 5). It was he, who made the sun to shine (VIII, 3, 6), and mount in the sky (I, 7, 3), or prepared a path for the sun (X, 111, 3), or found the sun in ‘the darkness in which he resided’ (III, 39, 5). It is evident from these passages that Indra is the winner of light and the sun, and this character of his was well understood by scholars, for Indra as *apavaryan*, or the recoverer (fr. *apa-vṛi*) of light, is compared by Max Muller with Apollon in the Greek mythology. But scholars have found it difficult to explain why this character of Indra should be mentioned in conjunction with other exploits, such as the conquest of Vritra and the liberation of the waters. In fact that is the real difficulty in the explanation of the legend either by the Storm or by the Dawn theory. Indra liberated the waters and brought about the dawn by killing Vritra,—is undoubtedly the burden of the whole story; but no explanation has yet been found by which the simultaneous recovery of light and waters could satisfactorily be accounted for. We have seen that by the Storm theory we can account for the release of waters, but not the recovery of the dawn; while if the legend is taken to represent a struggle between light and darkness, as implied by the Dawn theory, we can account for the recovery of the dawn and the sun, but not for the release of waters. Under these circumstances it is necessary to examine the nature and character of waters as described in the Vedas, before we accept or reject either or both of the above-mentioned theories.

c12.32

It has been noticed above that the passages, where waters are said to be released by Indra after killing Vritra do not refer expressly to the rain-cloud. The words parvata, giri, and the like are used to denote the place where the waters were confined, and âpaḥ, or sindhus, to denote the waters themselves. Now âpaḥ, or waters generally, are mentioned in a number of places in the Rig-Veda, and the word in many places denotes the celestial or aerial waters. Thus we are told that they follow the path of the gods, and are to be found beside the sun, who is with them (I, 23, 17). In VII, 49, 2, we have an express statement that there are waters, which are celestial (divyâḥ âpaḥ), and also those that flow in earthly channels (khanitrimâḥ), thus clearly distinguishing between terrestrial and celestial waters. In the same verse they are said to have the sea or the ocean for the goal; and in VIII, 69, 12, the seven rivers are said to flow into the jaws of Varuṇa as into a surging abyss. Varuṇa again is described as the god, who, like Indra, makes the rivers flow (II, 28, 4); and we have seen that the sage Dîrghatamas is said to have been borne on the waters wending to their goal (I, 158, 6). But it is needless to cite more authorities on this point, for scholars are agreed that both celestial and terrestrial waters are mentioned in the Rig-Veda. The nature, the character, or the movements of celestial waters appear, however, to be very imperfectly understood; and this is the sole reason why scholars have not yet been able to connect the release of the waters with the recovery of the dawn in the Vritra legend. It seems to have been supposed that when the Rig-Veda speaks of the celestial waters (*divyâḥ âpaḥ*) only the rain-waters are intended. But this is a mistake; for, in passages which speak of the creation of the world (X, 82, 6; 129, 3), the world is said to have once consisted of nothing but undifferentiated waters. In short, the Rig-Veda, like the Hebrew Testament, expressly states that the world was originally full of waters, and that there were the waters in the firmament above and waters below. The Shatapatha Brâhmaṇa (XI, 1, 6, 1), the Aitareya Upaniṣad (I, 1,) and Manu (I, 9), all say that the world was created from watery vapours. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the idea of celestial waters was well-known to the ancestors of the Vedic bards in early days; and as the celestial waters were conceived to be the material out of which the universe was created, it is probable that the Vedic bards understood by that phrase what the modern scientists now understand by ‘ether’ or ‘the nebulous mass of matter’ that fills all the space in the universe. We need not, however, go so far. It is enough for our purpose to know that the celestial waters (*divyâḥ âpaḥ*), or the watery vapours (*purīṣam*), are mentioned in the Rig-Veda, and that the Vedic bards considered the space or the region above, below, and around them to be full of these celestial vapours which are said to be co-eval with the world in X, 30, 10.

First 35 of 119 passages. Read on

Linked texts (14)